This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Indeed!
Us lot down here were advised by the mainstream media the other day that all of us on the electoral role should expect a form in the mail to tick 'for' or 'against' and if I understood it correctly the result will then go back to parliament for the pollies [politicians] to vote based on public sentiment.
Surely this begs the question 'why ask us if you're going to vote on it there then'?
It also depends on the terminology/phraseology of the question as to how one will vote, no?
A recognition of Relationship Equality for ALL - M&F, F&F or M&M, no probs, all for it, but:
[Come on, you knew there'd be a 'but']
'Marriage'? Or 'Civil Union'? Or some other term?
How did the UK vote, if you have?
Ta,
AP.
Us lot down here were advised by the mainstream media the other day that all of us on the electoral role should expect a form in the mail to tick 'for' or 'against' and if I understood it correctly the result will then go back to parliament for the pollies [politicians] to vote based on public sentiment.
Surely this begs the question 'why ask us if you're going to vote on it there then'?
It also depends on the terminology/phraseology of the question as to how one will vote, no?
A recognition of Relationship Equality for ALL - M&F, F&F or M&M, no probs, all for it, but:
[Come on, you knew there'd be a 'but']
'Marriage'? Or 'Civil Union'? Or some other term?
How did the UK vote, if you have?
Ta,
AP.
1
In reply to AP Melbourne:
Devolution of decision making (and so responsibility) to voters - see also Brexit.
Only works if information is factual rather than instinctual - see also Brexit.
Doesn't work if media coverage biased by self-interest - see also Brexit....
Marriage fine by me.
b
Devolution of decision making (and so responsibility) to voters - see also Brexit.
Only works if information is factual rather than instinctual - see also Brexit.
Doesn't work if media coverage biased by self-interest - see also Brexit....
Marriage fine by me.
b
24
1
In reply to AP Melbourne:
Unfortunately Aus is a highly catholic (big and little C) country. Although most polls are showing 80% + in favour, the child molester society are hardline against it.
Obvs I support gay marriage...
Unfortunately Aus is a highly catholic (big and little C) country. Although most polls are showing 80% + in favour, the child molester society are hardline against it.
Obvs I support gay marriage...
11
7
In reply to AP Melbourne:
Civil unions were introduced by the Blair government as a compromise to the religious/conservative/bigot brigade. May have been a necessary stepping stone but was messy and highlighted the inequality. Don't know the dates but It was only about 10 years later that proper marriages were introduced (except in NI).
If you can do it in a single step it's better and world won't end. Actually it might do, but it won't be the fault of the gays !
Civil unions were introduced by the Blair government as a compromise to the religious/conservative/bigot brigade. May have been a necessary stepping stone but was messy and highlighted the inequality. Don't know the dates but It was only about 10 years later that proper marriages were introduced (except in NI).
If you can do it in a single step it's better and world won't end. Actually it might do, but it won't be the fault of the gays !
8
In reply to AP Melbourne:
My best mate got married to a bloke last year and I was his Best man. It was a lovely sunny day and over breakfast I started singing 'It's a nice day, for a gay wedding.' Pete then remarked that it was just a wedding, not a gay one. Stopped me in my tracks and had me running for my speech
A wedding, as far as I'm aware, is a union of people wanting to show their love and commitment to each other... regardless of their gender.
I also know of a trio where there are two guys married to each other and a third that lives with them. In every sense a trio rather than a couple.
Edit: I clicked submit too soon
My best mate got married to a bloke last year and I was his Best man. It was a lovely sunny day and over breakfast I started singing 'It's a nice day, for a gay wedding.' Pete then remarked that it was just a wedding, not a gay one. Stopped me in my tracks and had me running for my speech
A wedding, as far as I'm aware, is a union of people wanting to show their love and commitment to each other... regardless of their gender.
I also know of a trio where there are two guys married to each other and a third that lives with them. In every sense a trio rather than a couple.
Edit: I clicked submit too soon
Post edited at 08:54
11
1
In reply to Tony the Blade:
Skimming through this while eating I read that as ; "regardless of their grinder".
> A wedding, as far as I'm aware, is a union of people wanting to show their love and commitment to each other... regardless of their gender.
Skimming through this while eating I read that as ; "regardless of their grinder".
7
2
In reply to AP Melbourne:
This is the sort of shite that the holy rollers promote;
This is why I'll be voting 'no' to same sex marriage.
There's no doubt that central to the concept of family is a definition of marriage involving a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. With only minor exceptions over some hundreds of years and across all the major religions, this is how marriage has been, and continues to be, defined.
It's also true that about 98 per cent of Australians identify as heterosexual and according to the 2011 census figures only 1 per cent of Australian couples are same-sex, with surveys suggesting only a minority want same-sex marriage. There are more important issues to worry about.
No matter how much gays and lesbians might want to wish otherwise from a physiological and biological point of view, only men and women can have children. Such is the nature of conceiving and giving birth that to pretend otherwise is to deny how nature works.
Dr Kevin Donnelly is a Senior Research Fellow at the Australian Catholic University and author of The Culture of Freedom.
More; http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/this-is-why-ill-be-voting-no-to-sam...
This is the sort of shite that the holy rollers promote;
This is why I'll be voting 'no' to same sex marriage.
There's no doubt that central to the concept of family is a definition of marriage involving a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. With only minor exceptions over some hundreds of years and across all the major religions, this is how marriage has been, and continues to be, defined.
It's also true that about 98 per cent of Australians identify as heterosexual and according to the 2011 census figures only 1 per cent of Australian couples are same-sex, with surveys suggesting only a minority want same-sex marriage. There are more important issues to worry about.
No matter how much gays and lesbians might want to wish otherwise from a physiological and biological point of view, only men and women can have children. Such is the nature of conceiving and giving birth that to pretend otherwise is to deny how nature works.
Dr Kevin Donnelly is a Senior Research Fellow at the Australian Catholic University and author of The Culture of Freedom.
More; http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/this-is-why-ill-be-voting-no-to-sam...
Post edited at 09:49
1
In reply to AP Melbourne:
Presumably either because the Australian constitution doesn't provide a method for direct democracy or they still wish to maintain the supremacy of parliament even when directly informed by the electorate of their views on a single issue.
Not to me.
We didn't directly. Same sex marriage is legal in England, Wales and Scotland, we got here via a decade or so of 'civil partnerships', then and now available only to same sex couples but functionally equivalent to marriage as far as I'm aware. There's some tidying up to do (ditching or extending civil partnerships and equalising pension rights etc) and as is often the case Northern Ireland has a way to go but it's starting to look like the outlier it is even beside its still rather conservative Catholic southern neighbour.
Welcome to the future. Hopefully.
jk
> Surely this begs the question 'why ask us if you're going to vote on it there then'?
Presumably either because the Australian constitution doesn't provide a method for direct democracy or they still wish to maintain the supremacy of parliament even when directly informed by the electorate of their views on a single issue.
> It also depends on the terminology/phraseology of the question as to how one will vote, no?
> A recognition of Relationship Equality for ALL - M&F, F&F or M&M, no probs, all for it, but:
> [Come on, you knew there'd be a 'but']
> 'Marriage'? Or 'Civil Union'? Or some other term?
> A recognition of Relationship Equality for ALL - M&F, F&F or M&M, no probs, all for it, but:
> [Come on, you knew there'd be a 'but']
> 'Marriage'? Or 'Civil Union'? Or some other term?
Not to me.
> How did the UK vote, if you have?
We didn't directly. Same sex marriage is legal in England, Wales and Scotland, we got here via a decade or so of 'civil partnerships', then and now available only to same sex couples but functionally equivalent to marriage as far as I'm aware. There's some tidying up to do (ditching or extending civil partnerships and equalising pension rights etc) and as is often the case Northern Ireland has a way to go but it's starting to look like the outlier it is even beside its still rather conservative Catholic southern neighbour.
Welcome to the future. Hopefully.
jk
Post edited at 09:59
1
2
In reply to Big Ger:
http://theweek.com/articles/557418/why-are-catholics-supportive-gay-marriage
It looks like 60% of Catholic voters ignore the clergy on this.
Will Australia be able to match Ireland's 62% in favour vote?
http://theweek.com/articles/557418/why-are-catholics-supportive-gay-marriage
It looks like 60% of Catholic voters ignore the clergy on this.
Will Australia be able to match Ireland's 62% in favour vote?
Post edited at 10:04
In reply to Tony the Blade:
>"Pete then remarked that it was just a wedding, not a gay one."
That was kind of him. Bet it didn't make you feel bad at all. Maybe he could have cut you a bit of slack and not got too hung up with the semantics of your well intention minor gaff. Sometimes people can be just too arse-y about political correctness and could do with saving their arse-i-ness for when there is some malicious intent to contest with.
>"Pete then remarked that it was just a wedding, not a gay one."
That was kind of him. Bet it didn't make you feel bad at all. Maybe he could have cut you a bit of slack and not got too hung up with the semantics of your well intention minor gaff. Sometimes people can be just too arse-y about political correctness and could do with saving their arse-i-ness for when there is some malicious intent to contest with.
Post edited at 12:04
9
6
In reply to JLS:
I take your point, however wedding mornings can be quite stressful - having had two of my own I speak from experience
He wasn't being pc, nor was he being arsey, and I certainly didn't feel bad about it. We are mates, and friendships cut across all that bollocks. Maybe he's heard it a thousand times before and just didn't want to hear it on the morning of his wedding, from his best man.
It was an amazing day, not marred in the slightest by my minor gaff.
I take your point, however wedding mornings can be quite stressful - having had two of my own I speak from experience
He wasn't being pc, nor was he being arsey, and I certainly didn't feel bad about it. We are mates, and friendships cut across all that bollocks. Maybe he's heard it a thousand times before and just didn't want to hear it on the morning of his wedding, from his best man.
It was an amazing day, not marred in the slightest by my minor gaff.
11
In reply to Tony the Blade:
Fair enough. Like you say it's a stressful time. I'll cut him some slack like you have done.
Fair enough. Like you say it's a stressful time. I'll cut him some slack like you have done.
Post edited at 12:32
1
1
In reply to Big Ger:
2 things.
1) how can you be a catholic researcher? research involves interpreting facts, not reading one book repeatedly and ignoring everything else in the world that contradicts it.
2) that statement implies that Hetro couples that cant or don't want to have kids are inferior in their eyes. so not only is their god a big shit for subjecting some couples to being baron, but then he looks down on them and forces his followers to shun then. sounds like a tw*t to me!
2 things.
1) how can you be a catholic researcher? research involves interpreting facts, not reading one book repeatedly and ignoring everything else in the world that contradicts it.
2) that statement implies that Hetro couples that cant or don't want to have kids are inferior in their eyes. so not only is their god a big shit for subjecting some couples to being baron, but then he looks down on them and forces his followers to shun then. sounds like a tw*t to me!
5
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Well you have every right to your opinion Big G - as do everyone else and I'll reiterate I have zero homophobia. Its just the word 'marriage' that I'm questioning.
There was an 84yr old widowed lady who rang in to 3AW the other morning: Her only son is gay and whilst she loves him as only a mother can - and adores his partner, she wept that *Marriage* is between a Man and a Woman. Full Stop. The End.
Gender equality yes, but *Marriage* is sacrosanct.
Just call it something else if same-sex couples want to unite that's all.
As for "80% are for yes" or however you phrased it, a quick straw poll at the pub tonight was 9 to 1 'no'.
> Unfortunately Aus is a highly catholic (big and little C) country. Although most polls are showing 80% + in favour, the child molester society are hardline against it.
> Obvs I support gay marriage...
Well you have every right to your opinion Big G - as do everyone else and I'll reiterate I have zero homophobia. Its just the word 'marriage' that I'm questioning.
There was an 84yr old widowed lady who rang in to 3AW the other morning: Her only son is gay and whilst she loves him as only a mother can - and adores his partner, she wept that *Marriage* is between a Man and a Woman. Full Stop. The End.
Gender equality yes, but *Marriage* is sacrosanct.
Just call it something else if same-sex couples want to unite that's all.
As for "80% are for yes" or however you phrased it, a quick straw poll at the pub tonight was 9 to 1 'no'.
5
9
In reply to Big Ger:
I'm glad Sinead O'Conner spoke out about child abuse like she did, and more attention has gradually started to be paid to it. I remember as a teenager seeing on TV about how child abusers have been moved to a different church rather than brought to book. It's happened in the Army Cadets and similar too, and I dare say any organisation where adults come into contact with children, that people close ranks and protect their reputation, but I'm still glad she did.
> Unfortunately Aus is a highly catholic (big and little C) country. Although most polls are showing 80% + in favour, the child molester society are hardline against it.
> Obvs I support gay marriage...
I'm glad Sinead O'Conner spoke out about child abuse like she did, and more attention has gradually started to be paid to it. I remember as a teenager seeing on TV about how child abusers have been moved to a different church rather than brought to book. It's happened in the Army Cadets and similar too, and I dare say any organisation where adults come into contact with children, that people close ranks and protect their reputation, but I'm still glad she did.
2
1
In reply to AP Melbourne:
It's just a word. It describes when two people commit to a lifetime together. It's used by people of many religions - so certainly isn't in any way 'sacred'. Anyone wanting to insist on using a different word for the same thing, simply on account of the sex of the people involved, must be trying to assert some moral superiority. It's pretty much the definition of prejudice. In other words, they're homophobic.
> Well you have every right to your opinion Big G - as do everyone else and I'll reiterate I have zero homophobia. Its just the word 'marriage' that I'm questioning.
It's just a word. It describes when two people commit to a lifetime together. It's used by people of many religions - so certainly isn't in any way 'sacred'. Anyone wanting to insist on using a different word for the same thing, simply on account of the sex of the people involved, must be trying to assert some moral superiority. It's pretty much the definition of prejudice. In other words, they're homophobic.
11
3
In reply to AP Melbourne:
None of this is rational, it's just making statements about words without any justification.
The question is this: do you give gay people equality, pure and simple and appreciate that this will upset people who have irrational views about the word "marriage". Or do you pander to that irrational nonsense, prioritising the feelings of those people over making a clear statement of equality, and in doing so give gay people their rights, but hang on to a little symbol to show that really, you think they're inferior. What's the right thing to do?
> Its just the word 'marriage' that I'm questioning.
> There was an 84yr old widowed lady who rang in to 3AW the other morning: Her only son is gay and whilst she loves him as only a mother can - and adores his partner, she wept that *Marriage* is between a Man and a Woman. Full Stop. The End.
> Gender equality yes, but *Marriage* is sacrosanct.
None of this is rational, it's just making statements about words without any justification.
> Just call it something else if same-sex couples want to unite that's all.
The question is this: do you give gay people equality, pure and simple and appreciate that this will upset people who have irrational views about the word "marriage". Or do you pander to that irrational nonsense, prioritising the feelings of those people over making a clear statement of equality, and in doing so give gay people their rights, but hang on to a little symbol to show that really, you think they're inferior. What's the right thing to do?
22
3
In reply to AP Melbourne:
Since it's humans who view things as sacrosanct, can't what is seen as sacrosanct change over time, as human practices and beliefs do?
The married lesbian with a child at a Buddhism course I went to, seemed like a very good person, and caring mother and wife. That seems pretty special, or sacrosanct to me.
There you go, problem solved, we just need to slightly enlarge what marriage can encompass..
> Gender equality yes, but *Marriage* is sacrosanct.
Since it's humans who view things as sacrosanct, can't what is seen as sacrosanct change over time, as human practices and beliefs do?
The married lesbian with a child at a Buddhism course I went to, seemed like a very good person, and caring mother and wife. That seems pretty special, or sacrosanct to me.
There you go, problem solved, we just need to slightly enlarge what marriage can encompass..
Post edited at 22:32
2
2
In reply to Timmd:
What can't we just give up on meaningless notions like "sacrosanct"? (and while we're at it, "marriage" - I'd have no nonsense civil partnerships/contracts about sharing stuff for everyone in law and whatever mumbo jumbo you like in private).
What can't we just give up on meaningless notions like "sacrosanct"? (and while we're at it, "marriage" - I'd have no nonsense civil partnerships/contracts about sharing stuff for everyone in law and whatever mumbo jumbo you like in private).
4
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I don't disagree, I'm just not sure if or when that'll happen. Until it does, it could be a good plan to expand what it covers? It could be a pragmatic thing to do.
It seems to be approaching that in the UK, with registry office unions and people celebrating the day in their own way as well. It's still 'marriage' I appreciate.
> What can't we just give up on meaningless notions like "sacrosanct"?
I don't disagree, I'm just not sure if or when that'll happen. Until it does, it could be a good plan to expand what it covers? It could be a pragmatic thing to do.
> (and while we're at it, "marriage" - I'd have no nonsense civil partnerships/contracts about sharing stuff for everyone in law and whatever mumbo jumbo you like in private).
It seems to be approaching that in the UK, with registry office unions and people celebrating the day in their own way as well. It's still 'marriage' I appreciate.
Post edited at 23:23
1
In reply to AP Melbourne:
That's her belief, others have different belief.
No man-made construct is "sacrosanct". The only people claiming that are the god botherers who need it to be so for their prejudices to have some effect.
You're drinking in the wrong pub.
> There was an 84yr old widowed lady who rang in to 3AW the other morning: Her only son is gay and whilst she loves him as only a mother can - and adores his partner, she wept that *Marriage* is between a Man and a Woman. Full Stop. The End.
That's her belief, others have different belief.
> Gender equality yes, but *Marriage* is sacrosanct.
No man-made construct is "sacrosanct". The only people claiming that are the god botherers who need it to be so for their prejudices to have some effect.
> As for "80% are for yes" or however you phrased it, a quick straw poll at the pub tonight was 9 to 1 'no'.
You're drinking in the wrong pub.
16
3
In reply to AP Melbourne:
Utter bollocks.
Marriage isn't sacrosanct. It's abused all the time by married partners who cheat on each other, or decide they no longer want to be married, and get divorced.
There's absolutely nothing about marriage that means it cannot apply to any two people who love each other, and choose to make a commitment to each other.
> Gender equality yes, but *Marriage* is sacrosanct.
Utter bollocks.
Marriage isn't sacrosanct. It's abused all the time by married partners who cheat on each other, or decide they no longer want to be married, and get divorced.
There's absolutely nothing about marriage that means it cannot apply to any two people who love each other, and choose to make a commitment to each other.
14
2
In reply to Timmd:
Fair point Timmd but that is a whole different topic and, with respect, irrelevant to this one.
> I'm glad Sinead O'Connor spoke out about child abuse like she did,,,,,
Fair point Timmd but that is a whole different topic and, with respect, irrelevant to this one.
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Just like France - one of the reasons that when we get round to getting married it'll be in France rather than Scotland.
> ... I'd have no nonsense civil partnerships/contracts about sharing stuff for everyone in law and whatever mumbo jumbo you like in private).
Just like France - one of the reasons that when we get round to getting married it'll be in France rather than Scotland.
1
In reply to Big Ger and capt paranoia
Fair point Big G
Good point about the cheating partners cap'n.
> You're drinking in the wrong pub.
Fair point Big G
Good point about the cheating partners cap'n.
In reply to AP Melbourne:
Not just about the cheating partners. If the ceremony is about the potential of conception... older folk's marriages will then be a bit dodgy, but they say they don't want extra laws to exclude people, especially if you could then get a real miracle of geriatric conception.
BUT... there is one situation where traditional marriage is not only welcomed with open arms, but additional legislation is introduced to make it easier, despite the possibility of conception being nil.
How about when the wife is suffering from a terminal illness - happened to a friend of a friend. There is special legislation to avoid the usual banns period and make it easier. Wives in that situation are no way able to bear a kid, but it is encouraged. Makes you think, maybe the whole 'potential conception' thing is in fact homophobia dressed up in a fancy outfit.
Not just about the cheating partners. If the ceremony is about the potential of conception... older folk's marriages will then be a bit dodgy, but they say they don't want extra laws to exclude people, especially if you could then get a real miracle of geriatric conception.
BUT... there is one situation where traditional marriage is not only welcomed with open arms, but additional legislation is introduced to make it easier, despite the possibility of conception being nil.
How about when the wife is suffering from a terminal illness - happened to a friend of a friend. There is special legislation to avoid the usual banns period and make it easier. Wives in that situation are no way able to bear a kid, but it is encouraged. Makes you think, maybe the whole 'potential conception' thing is in fact homophobia dressed up in a fancy outfit.
10
In reply to: All.
I knew darn well that throwing a match under this one would spark up a fiery debate but am genuinely interested in how people think. And no, I am not homophobic in the slightest. Shall I start another thread about how my last 2 girlfriends were Ethiopian so can get slated for racism too?
I find it enlightening reading all these posts and am slightly better informed for it so ta to all for your views.
End of the day, we go with our upbringing, heart and head in matters like these don't we?
Oh, got a couple of new chats coming up on the other channel ,,, and Zippy's Jamcrack Podcast's good isn't it.
Cheers, signing off.
AP.
I knew darn well that throwing a match under this one would spark up a fiery debate but am genuinely interested in how people think. And no, I am not homophobic in the slightest. Shall I start another thread about how my last 2 girlfriends were Ethiopian so can get slated for racism too?
I find it enlightening reading all these posts and am slightly better informed for it so ta to all for your views.
End of the day, we go with our upbringing, heart and head in matters like these don't we?
Oh, got a couple of new chats coming up on the other channel ,,, and Zippy's Jamcrack Podcast's good isn't it.
Cheers, signing off.
AP.
1
In reply to AP Melbourne:
My upbringing was Catholicism, and I can't understand why the love between two women or two men can't be as 'holy' as between a woman and a man. If a (definitely going to be) childless straight couple can be legitimate before the eyes of what people perceive to be god, why can't a gay or a lesbian couple...if it's not the having children angle which people can seem to baulk at?
Why the fuck not? The one thing people of all religions (and none) agree would help to make the world a better place, is for people to love another more..
Beyond saying straight marriage is sacrosanct (which I'm not having a go at), can you articulate why you think other marriages wouldn't be, could it be that you're just a bit uncomfortable with a valued tradition being change, what with you not being homophobic?
In another context, in itself, the expansion of a recognition of love possibly wouldn't seem like a bad thing...
My upbringing was Catholicism, and I can't understand why the love between two women or two men can't be as 'holy' as between a woman and a man. If a (definitely going to be) childless straight couple can be legitimate before the eyes of what people perceive to be god, why can't a gay or a lesbian couple...if it's not the having children angle which people can seem to baulk at?
Why the fuck not? The one thing people of all religions (and none) agree would help to make the world a better place, is for people to love another more..
Beyond saying straight marriage is sacrosanct (which I'm not having a go at), can you articulate why you think other marriages wouldn't be, could it be that you're just a bit uncomfortable with a valued tradition being change, what with you not being homophobic?
In another context, in itself, the expansion of a recognition of love possibly wouldn't seem like a bad thing...
Post edited at 16:18
1
1
In reply to Tony the Blade:
Might be best to get everyone comfortable with same-sex marriage before officially adding third parties to the mix
> I also know of a trio where there are two guys married to each other and a third that lives with them. In every sense a trio rather than a couple.
Might be best to get everyone comfortable with same-sex marriage before officially adding third parties to the mix
In reply to AP Melbourne:
What's it to me? Marry who you like.
I'll be over here busily sorting the recycling and being heterosexual.
People's gayness doesn't impact my life. I'm sure my straightness doesnt impact other people's lives. (Apart from Mrs BB ofcourse!)
What's it to me? Marry who you like.
I'll be over here busily sorting the recycling and being heterosexual.
People's gayness doesn't impact my life. I'm sure my straightness doesnt impact other people's lives. (Apart from Mrs BB ofcourse!)
5
In reply to bouldery bits:
The vote should be this: legalise gay marriage or ban all marriage. Eitherway equality achieved. It would be be landslide, obviously. I'd vote against though. Just got a new van and nobody is having it, don't care how fit they are.
The vote should be this: legalise gay marriage or ban all marriage. Eitherway equality achieved. It would be be landslide, obviously. I'd vote against though. Just got a new van and nobody is having it, don't care how fit they are.
2
In reply to AP Melbourne:
I don't have any sympathy for religious folk who want to maintain some legacy of the word marriage. Unfortunately (for them) - 'marriage' has flown the coop (although realistically marriage probably predates all modern religions and was a part of the pagan ceremonies that were swallowed up by organized religion). It's now a general concept maintained by everyone, and even though it began with the church - it has become detached. The battle was lost when marriage licenses came from an office rather than the church IMO.
As a (rather crap) analogy - it's like the church trying to say what the Easter bunny could and couldn't do on television
I don't have any sympathy for religious folk who want to maintain some legacy of the word marriage. Unfortunately (for them) - 'marriage' has flown the coop (although realistically marriage probably predates all modern religions and was a part of the pagan ceremonies that were swallowed up by organized religion). It's now a general concept maintained by everyone, and even though it began with the church - it has become detached. The battle was lost when marriage licenses came from an office rather than the church IMO.
As a (rather crap) analogy - it's like the church trying to say what the Easter bunny could and couldn't do on television
Post edited at 20:37
1
In reply to SenzuBean:
The term honeymoon is related to pagan times.
http://tugwellcreekfarm.com/about-mead/mead-and-weddings
It goes back to drinking mead for a whole month, or 'moon' following being married.
The term honeymoon is related to pagan times.
http://tugwellcreekfarm.com/about-mead/mead-and-weddings
It goes back to drinking mead for a whole month, or 'moon' following being married.
Post edited at 20:50
In reply to Timmd:
What religious people do is whatever they wanted to do anyway, and then the wheel out the religion to give it a stamp of moral legitimacy, e.g. "I've got quite normal, modern values, so I consider gay marriage to be equal to straight marriage - god blesses both equally, because that suits what I believe in for all sorts of other reasons, "; or alternatively, "I've got socially conservative values and I think the world was better before all this equal rights nonsense...besides, gay people bum each other and that's really not my bag, so god only blesses straight marriage but it's terribly unfashionable now to be mean to gays, so I think it's OK for them to have something that's not blessed by god, because my values dictate that god wouldn't like that kind of thing".
The religious need to be cast out into the cold when it comes to influencing what actually happens to ordinary people under the law. If it's got anything to do with religion at all, it has no place in law. Religion, like sex, is to be done in private. By all means share it with those you are close to - in a big group if that's your thing, but for everyone else, let's just live our lives on the basis that what you do behind closed doors is your own business - it doesn't matter how weird or even disgusting it is, so long as it is consenting no one else is hurt.
What is being changed for straight people? Oh yeah, nothing.
> My upbringing was Catholicism, and I can't understand why the love between two women or two men can't be as 'holy' as between a woman and a man.
What religious people do is whatever they wanted to do anyway, and then the wheel out the religion to give it a stamp of moral legitimacy, e.g. "I've got quite normal, modern values, so I consider gay marriage to be equal to straight marriage - god blesses both equally, because that suits what I believe in for all sorts of other reasons, "; or alternatively, "I've got socially conservative values and I think the world was better before all this equal rights nonsense...besides, gay people bum each other and that's really not my bag, so god only blesses straight marriage but it's terribly unfashionable now to be mean to gays, so I think it's OK for them to have something that's not blessed by god, because my values dictate that god wouldn't like that kind of thing".
The religious need to be cast out into the cold when it comes to influencing what actually happens to ordinary people under the law. If it's got anything to do with religion at all, it has no place in law. Religion, like sex, is to be done in private. By all means share it with those you are close to - in a big group if that's your thing, but for everyone else, let's just live our lives on the basis that what you do behind closed doors is your own business - it doesn't matter how weird or even disgusting it is, so long as it is consenting no one else is hurt.
> you're just a bit uncomfortable with a valued tradition being change, what with you not being homophobic?
What is being changed for straight people? Oh yeah, nothing.
Post edited at 20:50
2
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Indeed, but resistant to changes to traditions can be irrational, I found it vaguely weird (for not very long) to think that there might be a set day for Easter at some point in the future, but I couldn't think why (and forgot about it until now).
It doesn't need to be homophobia behind resistance to marriage being changed, but more a discomfort towards to change because it's change
I think there's potentially two elements to this, resistance to change as well as homophobia.
Whatever proportion of resistance in people is made up by each sentiment, the reasoning is still the same for why marriage should change* it would seem to me. I'm not closing my eyes to there being homophobia behind some not wanting marriage to change, though.
*For the gay and lesbian people who want it to.
> What is being changed for straight people? Oh yeah, nothing.
Indeed, but resistant to changes to traditions can be irrational, I found it vaguely weird (for not very long) to think that there might be a set day for Easter at some point in the future, but I couldn't think why (and forgot about it until now).
It doesn't need to be homophobia behind resistance to marriage being changed, but more a discomfort towards to change because it's change
I think there's potentially two elements to this, resistance to change as well as homophobia.
Whatever proportion of resistance in people is made up by each sentiment, the reasoning is still the same for why marriage should change* it would seem to me. I'm not closing my eyes to there being homophobia behind some not wanting marriage to change, though.
*For the gay and lesbian people who want it to.
Post edited at 20:59
2
1
4
In reply to Jon Stewart:
The event itself doesn't, no. It's a change to what 'went before', though, even if it's a positive one which doesn't change things for straight people.
Logically, the most obvious conclusion to draw, is that it's homophobia, with how marriage for straight people doesn't change, however, even if it's a positive change, and even if marriage itself doesn't change, 'within religion' it is still a change, because religion is not remaining static.
I had a grandparent who was perturbed by a different kind of holy wafer in church up in Sheffield, which was brown, compared to that in her church in Liverpool, which was white, it didn't make any difference in the scheme of things, but it was still 'different'. It's an extreme example, but it's what I'm trying to communicate, in terms of being perturbed by change.
What I'm just trying to do is explain what can seem incomprehensible to some, which could mean that I end up struggling. I'm not trying to argue that it makes sense, I'm just trying to show that it exists, that is, an emotional reaction against any change. Whether it makes any sense or not is a whole different area.
> But marriage *doesn't* change.
The event itself doesn't, no. It's a change to what 'went before', though, even if it's a positive one which doesn't change things for straight people.
Logically, the most obvious conclusion to draw, is that it's homophobia, with how marriage for straight people doesn't change, however, even if it's a positive change, and even if marriage itself doesn't change, 'within religion' it is still a change, because religion is not remaining static.
I had a grandparent who was perturbed by a different kind of holy wafer in church up in Sheffield, which was brown, compared to that in her church in Liverpool, which was white, it didn't make any difference in the scheme of things, but it was still 'different'. It's an extreme example, but it's what I'm trying to communicate, in terms of being perturbed by change.
What I'm just trying to do is explain what can seem incomprehensible to some, which could mean that I end up struggling. I'm not trying to argue that it makes sense, I'm just trying to show that it exists, that is, an emotional reaction against any change. Whether it makes any sense or not is a whole different area.
Post edited at 21:55
1
1
1
In reply to Timmd:
>Why the f*ck not?
Two things bother me about this. One is that you don't usually swear in your posts, it actually makes me a bit uncomfortable! Secondly, how did you manage to drop the f-bomb without the automatic censorship kicking in?
Edit. The censorship asterisk is there in your quote in my reply, but wasn't in your original post.
>Why the f*ck not?
Two things bother me about this. One is that you don't usually swear in your posts, it actually makes me a bit uncomfortable! Secondly, how did you manage to drop the f-bomb without the automatic censorship kicking in?
Edit. The censorship asterisk is there in your quote in my reply, but wasn't in your original post.
Post edited at 22:15
1
1
In reply to Timmd:
People cope with change that makes no difference to them all day, every day, even the socially conservative. They make a special case for this particular change, which isn't a change for them.
Sounds to me like you're trying to let people off the hook.
People cope with change that makes no difference to them all day, every day, even the socially conservative. They make a special case for this particular change, which isn't a change for them.
Sounds to me like you're trying to let people off the hook.
3
1
In reply to aln:
Ha, sorry if I made you uncomfortable. There's a quote I read, along the lines of 'That which can't be articulated shouldn't be trusted', which seems to fit this exactly. I've got to a point of thinking if people can't explain why they don't like it, that should be their problem only and they shouldn't try and stop people from showing they love one another in different kinds of ways. It's a bit of a rule I try and apply to myself. Probably only just when I remember to, but it's stuck in my mind. Being human is always subjective, but it's sometimes good to wonder why one decides something about a person.
I don't know how it got past the censor.
> >Why the f*ck not?
> Two things bother me about this. One is that you don't usually swear in your posts, it actually makes me a bit uncomfortable! Secondly, how did you manage to drop the f-bomb without the automatic censorship kicking in?
> Edit. The censorship asterisk is there in your quote in my reply, but wasn't in your original post.
Ha, sorry if I made you uncomfortable. There's a quote I read, along the lines of 'That which can't be articulated shouldn't be trusted', which seems to fit this exactly. I've got to a point of thinking if people can't explain why they don't like it, that should be their problem only and they shouldn't try and stop people from showing they love one another in different kinds of ways. It's a bit of a rule I try and apply to myself. Probably only just when I remember to, but it's stuck in my mind. Being human is always subjective, but it's sometimes good to wonder why one decides something about a person.
I don't know how it got past the censor.
Post edited at 22:35
In reply to Timmd:
That's almost as bad as Walkers changing the colour of salt'n'vinegar crisp packets to green, and cheese''onion to blue. That was truly shocking, I still haven't got over it.
> I had a grandparent who was perturbed by a different kind of holy wafer in church up in Sheffield, which was brown, compared to that in her church in Liverpool, which was white,
That's almost as bad as Walkers changing the colour of salt'n'vinegar crisp packets to green, and cheese''onion to blue. That was truly shocking, I still haven't got over it.
10
In reply to Jon Stewart:
A change in holy wafer from brown to white shouldn't be worth more than a passing thought, but a relative was well perturbed...I can see why you think that I'm trying to let people off the hook, but I'm not at all. if somebody is perturbed by a change in holy wafer, that's an illustration of how 'some' people can react to change in anything relating to their religion. It could be something you've had to grow up with to understand. I'm not saying it's rational or logical, only that it won't 'always' be homophobic. I hate homophobic people, and how they make the world a worse place, don't be in any doubt about that. I wish they'd stop it. All I'm saying is, where religion and change meet, things become weird. I can't think of anything more I can post. I've no time for homophobic people.
I'm very glad I'm not religious anymore, having thought back to my past, and some of my older relatives.
> People cope with change that makes no difference to them all day, every day, even the socially conservative. They make a special case for this particular change, which isn't a change for them.
> Sounds to me like you're trying to let people off the hook.
> Sounds to me like you're trying to let people off the hook.
A change in holy wafer from brown to white shouldn't be worth more than a passing thought, but a relative was well perturbed...I can see why you think that I'm trying to let people off the hook, but I'm not at all. if somebody is perturbed by a change in holy wafer, that's an illustration of how 'some' people can react to change in anything relating to their religion. It could be something you've had to grow up with to understand. I'm not saying it's rational or logical, only that it won't 'always' be homophobic. I hate homophobic people, and how they make the world a worse place, don't be in any doubt about that. I wish they'd stop it. All I'm saying is, where religion and change meet, things become weird. I can't think of anything more I can post. I've no time for homophobic people.
I'm very glad I'm not religious anymore, having thought back to my past, and some of my older relatives.
Post edited at 23:01
1
1
1
1
In reply to aln:
Haha. No, they don't. But they do if they want to hold onto their very identity, so in effect, yes they do! Although I'm glad my identity isn't contingent on wafers.
Haha. No, they don't. But they do if they want to hold onto their very identity, so in effect, yes they do! Although I'm glad my identity isn't contingent on wafers.
1
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Because their religion says as much....which is what I'm trying to get across. Even though my grandma ate it, she was still perturbed by that small change. So, extrapolate on from their, if you can.
If she still ate a different wafer, while being perturbed, how big a change might her religion expanding who can get married seem, if a change in wafer was worth making a to-do about when she got home?
I'm not trying to justify anything, I'm only trying to explain, that's the important different. While I understand it, I still don't think it makes any sense at all, and I think things ought to change. You'd know that I think things should change if you read all my posts on this thread.
It's not a justification, it's an illustration. An illustration of nutsness if you like.
> They have to eat the wafer.
Because their religion says as much....which is what I'm trying to get across. Even though my grandma ate it, she was still perturbed by that small change. So, extrapolate on from their, if you can.
If she still ate a different wafer, while being perturbed, how big a change might her religion expanding who can get married seem, if a change in wafer was worth making a to-do about when she got home?
I'm not trying to justify anything, I'm only trying to explain, that's the important different. While I understand it, I still don't think it makes any sense at all, and I think things ought to change. You'd know that I think things should change if you read all my posts on this thread.
It's not a justification, it's an illustration. An illustration of nutsness if you like.
Post edited at 23:10
In reply to Jon Stewart:
By the time the wafer gets eaten it's allegedly already become human flesh. Preference for white rather than brown then becomes a very different 'ism' entirely - and that's in addition to cannibalism!
By the time the wafer gets eaten it's allegedly already become human flesh. Preference for white rather than brown then becomes a very different 'ism' entirely - and that's in addition to cannibalism!
3
1
In reply to Timmd:
My point was that it was a change to *her* wafer, not to someone elses. Which gives her reason - albeit a poor one - to be perturbed.
If you're moaning about something that doesn't affect you, it means you have an axe to grind, otherwise, why would you be moaning?
My point was that it was a change to *her* wafer, not to someone elses. Which gives her reason - albeit a poor one - to be perturbed.
If you're moaning about something that doesn't affect you, it means you have an axe to grind, otherwise, why would you be moaning?
1
In reply to Timmd:
I'd rather have a pink wafer.
> A change in holy wafer from brown to white shouldn't be worth more than a passing thought, but a relative was well perturbed...
I'd rather have a pink wafer.
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
What I'm trying to get across, is that it was the idea of another church using a different kind of wafer, this was a change enough to be weirded out by when she got home...It's CHANGE. It's nuts, but that's how it can be with some religious people. I know this from experience, and I'm glad I thought it made no sense while I was still young.
See above...because it's change, if the one thing in a changing world which doesn't change, is one's religion, if anything in that religion changes, it's a cause for having to stop and readjust, and make sure life is still the same as it was just before. It's crazy but that's how it can be. It's not relevant if one isn't directly affected, because if it happens under the umbrella of one's religion, it can generate feelings of uncertainty. At least, until the religious leaders say that it's all okay and still in line with the teachings of god. If the Pope said he was cool with gays and lesbians being married, then anybody being perturbed by the idea of CHANGE, wouldn't mind because the highest authority (below god) would be saying that everything was still fine, still fine and stable if you like.
Which just leaves the genuinely homophobic people, who can go and sit in a room and think about themselves until they stop being hateful. Or stay and leave everybody else in peace. Either in the end.
I hope you grasp what I'm trying to get across. It's scrambling my mind a little, trying to put what doesn't make a lot of sense into words which make sense to read, even if the concept is beyond you, due to it being rather odd.
> My point was that it was a change to *her* wafer, not to someone elses. Which gives her reason - albeit a poor one - to be perturbed.
What I'm trying to get across, is that it was the idea of another church using a different kind of wafer, this was a change enough to be weirded out by when she got home...It's CHANGE. It's nuts, but that's how it can be with some religious people. I know this from experience, and I'm glad I thought it made no sense while I was still young.
> If you're moaning about something that doesn't affect you, it means you have an axe to grind, otherwise, why would you be moaning?
See above...because it's change, if the one thing in a changing world which doesn't change, is one's religion, if anything in that religion changes, it's a cause for having to stop and readjust, and make sure life is still the same as it was just before. It's crazy but that's how it can be. It's not relevant if one isn't directly affected, because if it happens under the umbrella of one's religion, it can generate feelings of uncertainty. At least, until the religious leaders say that it's all okay and still in line with the teachings of god. If the Pope said he was cool with gays and lesbians being married, then anybody being perturbed by the idea of CHANGE, wouldn't mind because the highest authority (below god) would be saying that everything was still fine, still fine and stable if you like.
Which just leaves the genuinely homophobic people, who can go and sit in a room and think about themselves until they stop being hateful. Or stay and leave everybody else in peace. Either in the end.
I hope you grasp what I'm trying to get across. It's scrambling my mind a little, trying to put what doesn't make a lot of sense into words which make sense to read, even if the concept is beyond you, due to it being rather odd.
Post edited at 23:30
1
In reply to Timmd:
I'm not certain I follow or believe it. At the end of the day, if you can't accept equal rights, it means you're an arsehole.
I'm not certain I follow or believe it. At the end of the day, if you can't accept equal rights, it means you're an arsehole.
2
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Please try and read and digest it, without thinking that following or believing what I've written, negates the importance of equal rights for everybody.
The two things are not mutually exclusive. You can follow what I've written, and also believe that equal rights are none negotiable.
Even though I've written it, I still think it's crazy.
Please try and read and digest it, without thinking that following or believing what I've written, negates the importance of equal rights for everybody.
The two things are not mutually exclusive. You can follow what I've written, and also believe that equal rights are none negotiable.
Even though I've written it, I still think it's crazy.
Post edited at 23:40
1
In reply to Timmd:
I don't think that *you're* trying to negate the importance for equal rights, and I suppose it's admirable that you try so hard to empathise with those whose views differ so much from your own. But when people believe in irrational garbage that pushes a little emotional button in their head - and then say that this is more important than a solid, rational concept like equal rights, then the bottom line is that they're full of shit. You can't get around that, even if you can empathise with it.
Where do you draw the line? Who else shall we make an effort to empathise with so we can explain away their intolerance of people who are different to them? There are plenty of understandable reasons that explain why people might be a bit racist, but we don't go the extra mile to empathise with them, we just tell them to grow up (or just shut up and stop embarrassing us).
I don't think that *you're* trying to negate the importance for equal rights, and I suppose it's admirable that you try so hard to empathise with those whose views differ so much from your own. But when people believe in irrational garbage that pushes a little emotional button in their head - and then say that this is more important than a solid, rational concept like equal rights, then the bottom line is that they're full of shit. You can't get around that, even if you can empathise with it.
Where do you draw the line? Who else shall we make an effort to empathise with so we can explain away their intolerance of people who are different to them? There are plenty of understandable reasons that explain why people might be a bit racist, but we don't go the extra mile to empathise with them, we just tell them to grow up (or just shut up and stop embarrassing us).
Post edited at 23:53
6
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
It's less I'm trying to empathise, and it's more it's something I knew until I started to question it. It's not something I live, but it's something I know fairly intimately..
We draw the line at still insisting on equality and equal rights, which is what I've pretty much posted - already. Forums are full of polar opposite points of views, in having lived religion and turned away, I'm just trying to fill in the middle bit.
> I don't think that *you're* trying to negate the importance for equal rights, and I suppose it's admirable that you try so hard to empathise with those whose views differ so much from your own. But when people believe in irrational garbage that pushes a little emotional button in their head - and then say that this is more important than a solid, rational concept like equal rights, then the bottom line is that they're full of shit. You can't get around that, even if you can empathise with it.
It's less I'm trying to empathise, and it's more it's something I knew until I started to question it. It's not something I live, but it's something I know fairly intimately..
> Where do you draw the line? Who else shall we make an effort to empathise with so we can explain away their intolerance of people who are different to them? There are plenty of understandable reasons that explain why people might be a bit racist, but we don't go the extra mile to empathise with them, we just tell them to grow up (or just shut up and stop embarrassing us).
We draw the line at still insisting on equality and equal rights, which is what I've pretty much posted - already. Forums are full of polar opposite points of views, in having lived religion and turned away, I'm just trying to fill in the middle bit.
Post edited at 00:04
In reply to Timmd:
I'm not convinced this isn't a case of "special pleading" - to me, there's no difference between non-acceptance of equal rights for religious reasons than any other.
I'm not convinced this isn't a case of "special pleading" - to me, there's no difference between non-acceptance of equal rights for religious reasons than any other.
1
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I'll try a last time then....
There's being homophobic because one is in denial about being gay, which is something which would last until denial ends, and there's being against gay marriage because the highest authority below god hasn't said it's okay - yet. The end result is the same, in terms of who can get married, but the reasoning behind it is very different.
I'm genuinely thinking you're intelligent enough to understand what I've written just above.
Read my posts, don't read my post, digest them or don't digest them. I've nothing more to add. I'm done.
> I'm not convinced this isn't a case of "special pleading" -
I'll try a last time then....
> to me, there's no difference between non-acceptance of equal rights for religious reasons than any other.
There's being homophobic because one is in denial about being gay, which is something which would last until denial ends, and there's being against gay marriage because the highest authority below god hasn't said it's okay - yet. The end result is the same, in terms of who can get married, but the reasoning behind it is very different.
I'm genuinely thinking you're intelligent enough to understand what I've written just above.
Read my posts, don't read my post, digest them or don't digest them. I've nothing more to add. I'm done.
Post edited at 00:14
1
In reply to Timmd:
OK, I see the difference. I just think that the latter is probably worse! It pretty much defines moral weakness according to my values.
> I'll try a last time then....
> There's being homophobic because one is in denial about being gay, which is something which would last until denial ends, and there's being against gay marriage because the highest authority below god hasn't said it's okay - yet.
OK, I see the difference. I just think that the latter is probably worse! It pretty much defines moral weakness according to my values.
1
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
It's kinda sad how people's identity depends on these small signifiers. I wish the human race could be as big as we could be.
> Haha. No, they don't. But they do if they want to hold onto their very identity, so in effect, yes they do! Although I'm glad my identity isn't contingent on wafers.
It's kinda sad how people's identity depends on these small signifiers. I wish the human race could be as big as we could be.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
It could be moral weakness, or it could be not being able to appreciate life without religion, leading to having to follow what is within that religion? Could depend on how harshly one judges others?
> OK, I see the difference. I just think that the latter is probably worse! It pretty much defines moral weakness according to my values.
It could be moral weakness, or it could be not being able to appreciate life without religion, leading to having to follow what is within that religion? Could depend on how harshly one judges others?
Post edited at 00:27
1
In reply to Timmd:
..can you articulate why you think other marriages wouldn't be, could it be that you're just a bit uncomfortable with a valued tradition being change, what with you not being homophobic?
I suppose perhaps I probably am struggling to articulate my own opinion and belief Timmd and am neither homophobic [I wore pink Lycra tights FFS & one of my very, very best friends is Gl*nn R*bbins] nor racist.
See, we have to vote here this week [pointless waste of $128MIL of our taxes] so I'm really just trying to sense 'the mood of the meeting' and to gauge things. I never meant any offense to anyone here - and hope nobody took any, just educating to hear so many opinions - which in this case come across as overwhelmingly 'Yes'.
..can you articulate why you think other marriages wouldn't be, could it be that you're just a bit uncomfortable with a valued tradition being change, what with you not being homophobic?
I suppose perhaps I probably am struggling to articulate my own opinion and belief Timmd and am neither homophobic [I wore pink Lycra tights FFS & one of my very, very best friends is Gl*nn R*bbins] nor racist.
See, we have to vote here this week [pointless waste of $128MIL of our taxes] so I'm really just trying to sense 'the mood of the meeting' and to gauge things. I never meant any offense to anyone here - and hope nobody took any, just educating to hear so many opinions - which in this case come across as overwhelmingly 'Yes'.
1
1
In reply to AP Melbourne:
Marriage is what we choose it to be, always has been and it's meant different things at different times. It's a social construct.
Probably says more about the poll that the populace.
jk
> Gender equality yes, but *Marriage* is sacrosanct.
Marriage is what we choose it to be, always has been and it's meant different things at different times. It's a social construct.
> As for "80% are for yes" or however you phrased it, a quick straw poll at the pub tonight was 9 to 1 'no'.
Probably says more about the poll that the populace.
jk
Post edited at 12:01
1
In reply to AP Melbourne:
You didn't offend me. If it looked like I was calling you an arsehole, I wasn't, honest You've been quite clear that you support equal rights, you just have a weird hang-up about the word "marriage". But I don't think that your hang-up should have any influence in law because it formalises the idea that homosexual people are inferior to heterosexual people and that is unhealthy in society. Cheerio!
> I never meant any offense to anyone here
You didn't offend me. If it looked like I was calling you an arsehole, I wasn't, honest You've been quite clear that you support equal rights, you just have a weird hang-up about the word "marriage". But I don't think that your hang-up should have any influence in law because it formalises the idea that homosexual people are inferior to heterosexual people and that is unhealthy in society. Cheerio!
7
1
In reply to AP Melbourne:
My view is that marriage is a public declaration of wanting to spend the rest of your life with the person you love. Everyone should be able to get married if they want to.
My (female) friend used to have to say my partner when everyone else was saying my husband or my wife. Now she can say my wife.
I can't really find the words to explain why this seemingly small thing is actually important but I know very stongly that it is.
To me religion seems like various people's attempts to put a framework in place for people to do the right thing.
To me fairness is doing the right thing. Some of the religious frameworks are a bit out of date. It's like those that don't eat pork. At the time and place it made sense but now we have refrigeration so it is unnecessary. Most people accept that some people don't eat pork, but wouldn't accept being banned from eating it if they are a different religion or none. Marriage shouldn't be banned for anyone based on an outdated idea of right and wrong.
My view is that marriage is a public declaration of wanting to spend the rest of your life with the person you love. Everyone should be able to get married if they want to.
My (female) friend used to have to say my partner when everyone else was saying my husband or my wife. Now she can say my wife.
I can't really find the words to explain why this seemingly small thing is actually important but I know very stongly that it is.
To me religion seems like various people's attempts to put a framework in place for people to do the right thing.
To me fairness is doing the right thing. Some of the religious frameworks are a bit out of date. It's like those that don't eat pork. At the time and place it made sense but now we have refrigeration so it is unnecessary. Most people accept that some people don't eat pork, but wouldn't accept being banned from eating it if they are a different religion or none. Marriage shouldn't be banned for anyone based on an outdated idea of right and wrong.
3
In reply to marsbar:
It's presumably about being "allowed in" to the biggest, most universal of societal institutions having been excluded for your whole life. I'm more bothered about the practical matter of equal rights, but this symbolism has an impact too.
> My (female) friend used to have to say my partner when everyone else was saying my husband or my wife. Now she can say my wife.
> I can't really find the words to explain why this seemingly small thing is actually important but I know very stongly that it is.
It's presumably about being "allowed in" to the biggest, most universal of societal institutions having been excluded for your whole life. I'm more bothered about the practical matter of equal rights, but this symbolism has an impact too.
6
1
In reply to marsbar:
It also has legal and financial ramifications.
My mates Patrick and Aidan refer to each other as "husband", but prefer "him indoors," and "him outdoors".
> My view is that marriage is a public declaration of wanting to spend the rest of your life with the person you love. Everyone should be able to get married if they want to.
It also has legal and financial ramifications.
> My (female) friend used to have to say my partner when everyone else was saying my husband or my wife. Now she can say my wife.
My mates Patrick and Aidan refer to each other as "husband", but prefer "him indoors," and "him outdoors".
In reply to marsbar:
Totally agree.
Religious dietary restriction and fasting has always been far more about clearly marking oneself out as a member of a group than about hygiene. The group membership and the bonding over common rituals/restrictions is more beneficial than the food you forgo.
jk
> My view is that marriage is a public declaration of wanting to spend the rest of your life with the person you love. Everyone should be able to get married if they want to.
Totally agree.
> It's like those that don't eat pork. At the time and place it made sense but now we have refrigeration so it is unnecessary. Most people accept that some people don't eat pork, but wouldn't accept being banned from eating it if they are a different religion or none.
Religious dietary restriction and fasting has always been far more about clearly marking oneself out as a member of a group than about hygiene. The group membership and the bonding over common rituals/restrictions is more beneficial than the food you forgo.
jk
3
In reply to AP Melbourne:
I don't have any concern about whether other people are married or not.
It's not up to me what people do at home with their partner either. Gay people want to get married, so let them.
Being gay is not infectious, it doesn't have to impact anyone but themselves and their children. I don't find it threatening and struggle to see why anyone would. Why interfere in someone else's life?
I don't have any concern about whether other people are married or not.
It's not up to me what people do at home with their partner either. Gay people want to get married, so let them.
Being gay is not infectious, it doesn't have to impact anyone but themselves and their children. I don't find it threatening and struggle to see why anyone would. Why interfere in someone else's life?
2
In reply to AP Melbourne:
Plea from one of Aus's most loved comedians.
"It's not just about abstract issues like equality," Szubanski said about the significance of a 'yes' vote on the issue.
"People need to know, you're not equally protected if you have a defacto relationship compared to a marriage. It's not just about love, it's about illness and death and that's when it really comes to the crunch.
"A friend of mine, her long-term partner had cancer. She wanted to be in the room with her when she was having a painful treatment, and the doctor said, 'Next of kin only'," said Szubanski. "She wasn't allowed in, and she had to stand outside and listen to the screams of the woman she loved, unable to even comfort her.
"In whose universe is that fair?" she asked.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/magda-szubanski-...
Plea from one of Aus's most loved comedians.
"It's not just about abstract issues like equality," Szubanski said about the significance of a 'yes' vote on the issue.
"People need to know, you're not equally protected if you have a defacto relationship compared to a marriage. It's not just about love, it's about illness and death and that's when it really comes to the crunch.
"A friend of mine, her long-term partner had cancer. She wanted to be in the room with her when she was having a painful treatment, and the doctor said, 'Next of kin only'," said Szubanski. "She wasn't allowed in, and she had to stand outside and listen to the screams of the woman she loved, unable to even comfort her.
"In whose universe is that fair?" she asked.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/magda-szubanski-...
5
In reply to Big Ger:
Just seen this article https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/24/meghan-trainor-furio...
Apart from anything else "my vote is no, you need to let it go" has to be the weakest election slogan I've ever heard
Just seen this article https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/24/meghan-trainor-furio...
Apart from anything else "my vote is no, you need to let it go" has to be the weakest election slogan I've ever heard
In reply to Jon Stewart:
This isn't a good sign.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/08/22/fags-and-fear-mongering-australias-gay-...
This isn't a good sign.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/08/22/fags-and-fear-mongering-australias-gay-...
In reply to AP Melbourne:
This is now going live;
youtube.com/watch?v=KqXLfp2sFHQ&
One woman says: "The school told my son he could wear a dress next year if he felt like it." Another says: "When same-sex marriage passes as law overseas, this type of programme becomes widespread and compulsory."
The advert concludes with a message: "In countries with gay marriage, parents have lost their right to choose." It does not provide evidence for its claims.
I'd like to meet whoever dreamed up this bag o shite.
This is now going live;
youtube.com/watch?v=KqXLfp2sFHQ&
One woman says: "The school told my son he could wear a dress next year if he felt like it." Another says: "When same-sex marriage passes as law overseas, this type of programme becomes widespread and compulsory."
The advert concludes with a message: "In countries with gay marriage, parents have lost their right to choose." It does not provide evidence for its claims.
I'd like to meet whoever dreamed up this bag o shite.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...